Gentrification

[Ken-1122]

Gen-tri-fi-ca-tion
(noun)
The process of renovating and improving housing or a district so that it conforms to middle-class taste

Why is this usually seen as a bad thing? Especially when compared to the opposite; to ruin a middle class district so that it no longer conforms to middle-class taste.
Your thoughts?

 

[splish- splash]

From what ive observed, for some British people its just a cultural thing really where people feel they must preserve heritage. For example you will find in many places people still living in Victorian houses i think they are called.

 

[PloverWing]

As I understand it, the problem is that rents and housing prices may go up, so that the people who used to live in the neighborhood can no longer afford to live there. Similarly, shops may be replaced with higher-priced shops, so that residents can no longer afford to shop in their own neighborhood.

Renovation in itself isn't the problem (and, in itself, can be a good thing), but driving people out of their own neighborhood by raising the prices of everything is a problem.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Why is this usually seen as a bad thing?

Because in practice, when it happens to a neighborhood, it means driving up property values such that long time residents who built the community - very often marginalized people - are priced out. It also means destroying any sense of character the place had, making everything to a vapid, carbon-copied, tech-bro friendly nowhere-in-particular. Longstanding local institutions from music venues to mom and pop shops get replaced with Starbucks and Wholefoods. I've seen it happen to too many vibrant, colorful, unique communities. It's even happening to my favorite city in the world, New Orleans. Replacing beautiful, individually designed Creole-style family homes from the 1870s with condo hi-rises built by the same corporations that are gentrifying every city from Boston to Austin to San Francisco. Absolutely disgusting.

Also, there is evidence that these "luxury suites" are nothing but tax shelters. So, they're not even providing housing. Just ruining the prospects of living in the city for people who can no longer afford it. Boston's Luxury Towers: A Shell Game For the Global Elite? A New Study Makes The Case

That's a few reasons.

 

[Ken-1122]

From what ive observed, for some British people its just a cultural thing really where people feel they must preserve heritage. For example you will find in many places people still living in Victorian houses i think they are called.

I don't think it works that way in the US

 

[Ken-1122]

As I understand it, the problem is that rents and housing prices may go up, so that the people who used to live in the neighborhood can no longer afford to live there. Similarly, shops may be replaced with higher-priced shops, so that residents can no longer afford to shop in their own neighborhood.

Renovation in itself isn't the problem (and, in itself, can be a good thing), but driving people out of their own neighborhood by raising the prices of everything is a problem.

So basically those who are invested (owners) in the neighborhood love gentrification because they see their investment increase; while those who are not invested (renters) are the ones who are complaining.
If you aren’t invested in the neighborhood, do you really have a right to complain about the direction the neighborhood evolves? What’s stopping you from just taking your rent money and going somewhere else?

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

So basically those who are invested (owners) in the neighborhood love gentrification because they see their investment increase; while those who are not invested (renters) are the ones who are complaining.
If you aren’t invested in the neighborhood, do you really have a right to complain about the direction the neighborhood evolves? What’s stopping you from just taking your rent money and going somewhere else?

Start thinking of "investment" in terms other than dollar amount, and you'll answer your own question.

 

[SimplyMe]

So basically those who are invested (owners) in the neighborhood love gentrification because they see their investment increase; while those who are not invested (renters) are the ones who are complaining.
If you aren’t invested in the neighborhood, do you really have a right to complain about the direction the neighborhood evolves? What’s stopping you from just taking your rent money and going somewhere else?

No, because often the home owners are forced out as well. Sure, they still own their house and any payments they are making don't increase, but their property taxes do -- and for a middle class family this can severely damage their budget. Additionally, many find themselves increasingly marginalized in their neighborhoods -- and harrassed, in various forms, by new neighbors who don't like having "the wrong type" (middle class) of person in their upscale neighborhood.

Worse, there are no good alternatives for them as they can't afford housing "in the city" and going outside the city raises costs, such as transportation and child care expenses (when they spend an extra hour or two commuting); as well as the loss of family and leisure time.

 

[Handmaid for Jesus]

So basically those who are invested (owners) in the neighborhood love gentrification because they see their investment increase; while those who are not invested (renters) are the ones who are complaining.
If you aren’t invested in the neighborhood, do you really have a right to complain about the direction the neighborhood evolves? What’s stopping you from just taking your rent money and going somewhere else?

I don't think people should be priced out of their neighborhoods. If rents are reasonable, and people can afford to live in a neighborhood prior to gentrification, imho, it should remain so.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

No, because often the home owners are forced out as well. Sure, they still own their house and any payments they are making don't increase, but their property taxes do -- and for a middle class family this can severely damage their budget. Additionally, many find themselves increasingly marginalized in their neighborhoods -- and harrassed, in various forms, by new neighbors who don't like having "the wrong type" (middle class) of person in their upscale neighborhood.

Worse, there are no good alternatives for them as they can't afford housing "in the city" and going outside the city raises costs, such as transportation and child care expenses (when they spend an extra hour or two commuting); as well as the loss of family and leisure time.

Not to mention the fact that the people being driven out are often the ones responsible for building the desired community in the first place. During my longtime residence in Somerville, MA, you would see something like "come to Somerville for the vibrant and quirky arts and culture!" as a common marketing line used by investors and real estate agents. The irony of course being, once you price all the artists out, who's going to maintain your "vibrant and quirky" selling point?

Somerville at one time had the highest number of artists and musicians per capita in the country. That number has been rapidly shrinking since the early '10s.

 

[istodolez]

Gen-tri-fi-ca-tion
(noun)
The process of renovating and improving housing or a district so that it conforms to middle-class taste

Why is this usually seen as a bad thing? Especially when compared to the opposite; to ruin a middle class district so that it no longer conforms to middle-class taste.
Your thoughts?

Gentrification sounds great because you get these cool neighborhoods with lots of things to go see and do on your day-trips to the big city. The downside is that it often displaces poor people (it doesn't raise their standard of living, it just makes the area too expensive for them to remain in).

If gentrification meant that raised the level of living for the current residents instead of creating a space occupied by people who are wealthy and move in then it would be a different conversation

 

[istodolez]

If you aren’t invested in the neighborhood, do you really have a right to complain about the direction the neighborhood evolves? What’s stopping you from just taking your rent money and going somewhere else?

This assumes that

1. Renters aren't somehow invested in the place they live (false)

2. Renters have an easy and equitable market to choose from as if nothing else matters (where their kids are going to school, where their jobs are, access to transportation and groceries, etc.).

 

[mala]

So basically those who are invested (owners) in the neighborhood love gentrification because they see their investment increase; while those who are not invested (renters) are the ones who are complaining.
If you aren’t invested in the neighborhood, do you really have a right to complain about the direction the neighborhood evolves? What’s stopping you from just taking your rent money and going somewhere else?

Pretty much what happens in San Francisco where people aren't able to live in or near the city and have to commute long distances to work.
In some places that isn't an issue since there is room to expand cities but in others there is simply no room to expand out. SF and NYC for example. It's not like people are throwing up high rise tenements left and right.
Frankly though this is a very simple thing to find out and your moral compass is horrible.

 

[Radagast]

Additionally, many find themselves increasingly marginalized in their neighborhoods -- and harrassed, in various forms, by new neighbors who don't like having "the wrong type" (middle class) of person in their upscale neighborhood.

Really? Is there any evidence of that?

 

[Radagast]

So basically those who are invested (owners) in the neighborhood love gentrification because they see their investment increase

It also makes for a great wealth creation engine; you can buy a house with borrowed money (the bank sees that it's an appreciating asset), renovate it (if you have taste and don't mind working with your hands), then sell at a profit.

 

[Fantine]

Renters are often people with families, children who attend school, ties to local churches and community groups. When gentrification begins in an area like Harlem (NYC), for example, people can't find housing anywhere near the commuting distance they used to have.

Brooklyn has become quite gentrified as well. But the idea of "higher taxes" is a pipe dream I'm afraid. Take Donald Trump, for example. When he bought distressed properties and fixed them, he demanded tax abatements of 40 years. When he knocked down a historic building and built Trump Tower on 5th Avenue in NYC, the mayor wouldn't give him a tax abatement on his high rise filled with $2 million dollar apartments, arguing that those programs were meant to help the middle class afford to live in NYC. Trump (par for the course) brought the city to the NY Supreme Court. He built Trump Tower in 1979. The first year he paid taxes on the property was 2019....

Just in case there are one or two people out there who still think there is something ethical or admirable about this man...

But Trump's buildings are usually new, and large. Kushner is more of a typical slumlord.

 

[Ken-1122]

Because in practice, when it happens to a neighborhood, it means driving up property values such that long time residents who built the community - very often marginalized people - are priced out. It also means destroying any sense of character the place had, making everything to a vapid, carbon-copied, tech-bro friendly nowhere-in-particular. Longstanding local institutions from music venues to mom and pop shops get replaced with Starbucks and Wholefoods. I've seen it happen to too many vibrant, colorful, unique communities. It's even happening to my favorite city in the world, New Orleans. Replacing beautiful, individually designed Creole-style family homes from the 1870s with condo hi-rises built by the same corporations that are gentrifying every city from Boston to Austin to San Francisco. Absolutely disgusting.

But in order to replace those mom and pop type stores, in order to replace those 150 year old houses, the people who owned those places (invested) get bought out for a lot of money. So it’s good for the people invested in the neighborhood.

Also, there is evidence that these "luxury suites" are nothing but tax shelters. So, they're not even providing housing. Just ruining the prospects of living in the city for people who can no longer afford it. Boston's Luxury Towers: A Shell Game For the Global Elite? A New Study Makes The Case

That's a few reasons.

If someone is living in the luxury suite, it is providing housing, even if it is only a second home for some rich guy. I doubt someone is gonna spend millions luxury suites with the intent of it remaining empty

 

[Ken-1122]

Start thinking of "investment" in terms other than dollar amount, and you'll answer your own question.

By definition, investment is about finances.

 

[Ken-1122]

No, because often the home owners are forced out as well. Sure, they still own their house and any payments they are making don't increase, but their property taxes do -- and for a middle class family this can severely damage their budget. Additionally, many find themselves increasingly marginalized in their neighborhoods -- and harrassed, in various forms, by new neighbors who don't like having "the wrong type" (middle class) of person in their upscale neighborhood.

People rarely have to sell their house because the value has increased so much they can’t afford the taxes, but when that does happen, they will sell their house at such a financial gain they will be able to afford a much better place than they would have been able to afford had gentrification not taken place.

Worse, there are no good alternatives for them as they can't afford housing "in the city" and going outside the city raises costs, such as transportation and child care expenses (when they spend an extra hour or two commuting); as well as the loss of family and leisure time.

Gentrification usually involves a neighborhood or area; not an entire city

 

[Radagast]

People rarely have to sell their house because the value has increased so much they can’t afford the taxes, but when that does happen, they will sell their house at such a financial gain they will be able to afford a much better place than they would have been able to afford had gentrification not taken place.

Here in Australia, people in that situation have often been able to move to a smaller town and take early retirement, the financial gain was so large.